On Metaphysics, Logic and Descartes Argument

[ How can you have] a syllogism? What can a syllogism prove, if there are no axiomatic or tautological statements? From the foundation, you need to build and settle your logic on what's true. Having a syllogism isn't going to work, where you invalidate all true statements.

But Descartes said, that since all he could know was that he thinks therefore he is, and since he was often wrong, he couldn't be God, but there had to be a God outside of Him which ordered reality, therefore, there had to be a God to establish proof, and therefore, since God is good, He allowed us to trust our senses about that proof.

Like I said, we need tautologies and axioms to make sense out of logic. You didn't follow my or Descartes' argument.

Again, why have a syllogism in the first place, if you can never establish a truth claim?

We're arguing on the being of being, which is a metaphysical presumption, and you brought up Descartes, which his argument was that since he got things wrong, he couldn't be God, but there had to be a God to establish and order existence. Since, he found that he could make false claims, something bigger than him had to establish the truth of those claims.

And God is good, because we see there is good. Without God, there can be no good. As then it's humanity's judgment, and we've established humanity cannot be God, from even Descartes, that we get things wrong. Therefore, a being more powerful than us, i.e. God, needs to order what is Good and also what is true. But, good is self evident as is truth, as all things relate back to tautologies, of either being true or false. And I observe good, and I observe truth. And since I see good, I know God is good, and we can therefore trust our senses. Therefore, God exists, and we can know reality is real.

[If we're] basing it on the axiom that reality itself is real, then the organizational framework of reality, that it makes sense [is the proof of design]. There's a lot of structures that appear in physics and nature that are directly related to geometry--they have to be--and by number, which inherent in that organizational framework is proof of a design. And how we get to the God of the Bible, is that if there's good that can be seen outside of human judgment--and I'm pretty certain there can be--then we need to find which God best represents it. And I think the God of the Old and New Testament, reflect what we do know about the good. That ultimately there must be judgment by means of a sword, but also grace for those who truly want to receive it, and better themselves.

[I]t's just what the laws of nature prove, that there's a design. At some point, you have to look at it, and it makes sense.

I think your problem is, you want to stay at step 1 too much, and never move beyond it. But, generally, there's sense in the universe, based on the laws of physics, and their geometric construction. And X = X is the foundation of logic, so you're basically trying to undo logic, while telling me to prove something logically. So, that's kind of nonsensical, and if your doubt is like that, then that's doubly why I believe in God, so X does equal X, and so there's sense and coherence to the universe. And not my own mental faculties, or the whims of experts.

As far as the God of the Bible, like I said He is good, and sometimes there needs to be a sword to purge the Earth. It's a very dense theological argument, which I can see from the get go you're not willing to have.

But, generally, there has to be punishment for sin, and if you took the Old Testament, everyone would be put to death. If it's stoning for breaking the Sabbath or dishonoring your father, or being a part of a nation that is not Israel, that's the whole point, is that we need Grace so we aren't slain. And we need to trust on God's goodness, and His definitions and not our own, as I've clearly established--and so have you--there can be no knowledge without Him.

And you're moving to the point, where you're saying X=X can be put into doubt, and that's generally why I'm a little leery of people like you, and believe in God, because you do invalidate X = X. Which a Syllogism relies on X = X as much as anything, as if X doesn't = X you can't move to the next step of the causal chain. You're stuck in infinite loops of trying to prove ontological existence, and metaphysics. Not moving to the assumption of reality, which you need for any basis of science to begin with.

1. I think all knowledge begins with look and listen. And we draw conclusions from it, that what I see, in mathematics, and the geometry of it--and I'm not the first to say this--is a design in the inherent structure of the universe.

2. Well, x can = y. But, you need x to = x first, as that's the fundamental groundwork of logic. If it's not, then there's no way to ever move from x to y.

3. It is a dense theological argument. You're not going to understand it. But, generally, sin causes suffering, and there needs to be judgment against it. Which without God's judgment, it falls into man's hand, and man judges incorrectly. As, we're arguing the very basic basics about logic and how to prove I have hands. That's the context. Which, you can't even get there. That's utterly specious, is what I'm telling you, but also why humans cannot establish what's right or wrong, or what's good from evil, or even that there is good and evil. Which I personally observe, and see the God of the Bible best represents what I witness to be good, and has the best solution to what's evil.

4. You can call it special pleading, but it's actually your stubborn disinterest in grasping my argument.

Also, there are no universal principles, only principles drawn through context. You don't put an honorable man in prison, but you do put a murderer in there. But, you don't put a soldier who murdered in there, unless it was murdering an unlawful agent.

You understand?

So there's nothing to special plead. God destroys sinners. He gives grace to those who desire Him and want to change. And you need Him, to understand what's lawful and not. As He's smarter than we are. And His law is indeed self evident... but so are the most difficult constructs of Geometry. It can be too difficult for people to understand, so we need to trust on God.

[D]esign is [also] self evident. In the rudiments of mathematics and the way geometry fits together, it proves a design.

If x doesn't equal x, there can be no logic at all. That's what you're failing to understand.

I think in the theological world--which again, you're not going to understand because that's always been the thing you couldn't--I think there is a nuance. There is both good and evil. Humans can--the most intelligent--discern some of it. Not all of it. Just like humans can't determine all of science. But, we can understand it. And so we need God to arbitrate, and ultimately judge. Even more than that, empower His people to live according to what's right and good.

That's what God means in Hebrew is "Judge."

Why there's evil? I don't know. But there is, and the imperfections of this world are proof that it's not a safe place to put our hopes. And generally, there could only be evil, if God didn't judge. Men are awful judges of right and wrong--not all, but some people can't understand why calculus works, while some can, and others cannot understand basic empathy.

There needs to be a judge higher than man, and also a power by which Man uses to be righteous. As men cannot act righteously on their own accord. I've never seen it, actually, and the societies that least have God, seem to be the most immoral. And they lack peace. They may have pleasure, but they have no peace.

But, generally, the laws of quanta are self evident. We just don't understand it yet. And I'd say morality is also self evident--a genius like Confucius or Mozi can describe it--but say you do codify a perfect morality, what or who holds man accountable to it? That's the real trick... I do believe men can indeed form a perfectly rational moral system, but they ultimately--because of sin--will fail to do it. And also, the chances of them completing such a thing is slim to none, also.

Because men, and it's in the first three chapters, get tempted. That's why there will never be a perfect world, until God judges and uses the Torah to hold man accountable, through the Sword--Jesus is going to war at the end--and without this, without God's power, and without God's authority, man is incapable of ever arbitrating himself. Specifically, when someone does sin, who is going to forgive them? As all men sin, and naturally all men create suffering... who's to forgive these men? Who's to restore their conscience? Are you going to kill them when they make a mistake? Then you're affirming the Old Testament, which I know you don't want to do. Or are you going to just torture them in a cell? Which you essentially make hell through that edict, and I think only God should have the authority to torment someone so.

So, ultimately, it's God's judgment, not man's, that's the new dispensation of Grace in Christ Jesus, man is not the authority, man is not creating utopia, because that's a bloody endeavor on its own, that can only make suffering. Man will fail. And that's why we need God.